How to Understand Food Labels

(Picture Credit - ChKd org)

The best way to be healthy is to eat fresh unprocessed food. But today that’s not always practicable. So, you must read those food labels. Please read on.

From January to May of last year I avoided all processed sugar (including chocolate, cakes etc.). Thus I lost a fair bit of weight. And hopefully delayed the onset of age-related type 2 diabetes. That was the start of a personal drive towards healthier eating. It soon became clear that all processed food is a potential health hazard. Fresh undoctored food is clearly best. But in this day and age fresh food can be hard to come by. Obvious example, cereals. I find I have to eat some processed food. I’m not a doctor, but it is quite clear that there is a real need to read and understand those wretched food labels. I say “wretched” because I hate dealing with lots of numbers and weird “measures”. At least some labels are now colour coded here in the UK, which helps.

My objective when choosing food is of course to avoid high sugar and salt content. The latter is because I’m on 2 lots of medication for high blood pressure. Avoiding saturated fat also seems a good idea as a rule, especially Trans Fats. Foods high in unsaturated fatty acids and Omega 3 are a bonus.

So here is a rough guide to those labels. For the sake of uniformity I focussed on the quantities of sugar etc. per 100 Grams. Just be aware that actual portions will vary from food to food. So what is “high” and what is “low” etc.???

Well our UK National Health Service (NHS) and other website sources advise that High Total Fats (Red) is 17.5 G per 100G and Low (Green) is 3G or less.

Anything in-between is Medium (Orange). 

For Saturated Fats (“Sats”) that is High 5G+ and Low <1.5G.

Sugars is 22.5G+ High, 5 – Low; Salt is 1.5+ High, <0.3 – Low. High Fibre is 6G + and High Protein is 10G+. Some sources claim High Carbs are 60G +.

Another thing to look out for: avoid foods that contain lots of additives etc. – “E Numbers” and unpronounceable chemicals etc.

Having established the above I began to list the nutritional information on the labels of my main foods. Started with these –

For Breakfast and often Tea: Weetabix Oatibix Flakes: (Per 100G) 399 kcals, Sugar 14, Fibre 7.2, Protein 9.3, Salt 0.3. Lots of Vitamins Listed. Wholegrain Oats 64%. 

Comment: Oats are known to be good for the heart etc. Nice low salt. Plenty of fibre and protein. Much better than many kiddie cereals. My only gripe is they are a bit high on sugar, but I can put up with that.

Normal Weetabix: 362 kcals, Sugar 4.4, Fibre 10, Protein 12, Salt 0.28. Comment: Wheat of course, and lower than Oatibix for sugar and salt. More fibre and protein too.

Shredded Wheat (Nestle in UK): 362 kcals, Sugar 0.7, Fibre 12.3, Protein 11.6, Salt 0.05. Comment: Statistically this looks to be at least one of the healthiest cereals. If it was made from oats it would be perfect. See the low salt! Low sugar, high fibre! PS I hear that this is the oldest cereal of them all too!

Needless to say none of these cereals contain animal fats etc. Essentially they contain plant protein, arguably better for you than meat.

That will do for a start. Later I will compile a longer list of my favourite foods with their nutritional values and my comments. Look out for that. Hope you found this useful.

PS See Next Post down here for that follow-up list.

Paul Butters

What Those Food Labels Say: Part Two

(Picture Credit - Health gov)

 
In “How to Read Food Labels…” (October, 2015) I explained the basics of understanding the “Healthiness” of packaged foods. These were summed up by:

“So here is a rough guide to those labels. For the sake of uniformity I focussed on the quantities of sugar etc. per 100 Grams. Just be aware that actual portions will vary from food to food. So what is “high” and what is “low” etc.???

Well our UK National Health Service (NHS) and other website sources advise that High Total Fats (Red) is 17.5 G per 100G and Low (Green) is 3G or less. Anything in-between is Medium (Orange).

For Saturated Fats (“Sats”) that is High 5G+ and Low <1.5G.

Sugars is 22.5G+ High, <5 – Low.

Salt is 1.5+ High, <0.3 – Low.

High Fibre is 6G + and High Protein is 10G+.

Some sources claim High Carbs are 60G +.”

(I have re-paragraphed this for clarity).

But what about other foods? (I said last time that Weetabix, Shredded Wheat and Oatibix Flakes are very healthy). Here goes.

Ritz Crackers: Kcals 500, salt 1.38, sugar 8.8, protein 6.9, fibre 0.6. Rather salty (and dry!).

Standard Crisps: Kcals 526, salt 1.5, sugar 2.3, prot 6.9, fibre 3.9. Well salt is added. Fatty too I’m told. Give me an alternative for soaking up my beer!

Walker’s Salt and Shake: kcals 533, salt 0 (0.6 per 24g per sachet – about 3 per 100g), prot 6.2, fibre 4.4. (Don’t ask why these differ from standard)!

Krackawheat biscuits: kcals 380, salt 1.0, sugar 2.6, protein 1.0, fibre 5.9.

Fruit & Fibre Cereals: kcals 380, salt 1.0, sugar 24, prot 8, fibre 9. These contain lots of vitamins. A bit sugary but plenty of fibre of course.

Wheat Bran Flakes: kcals 356, salt 1.0, sugar 20, prot 11, fibre 15. Again plenty of Vits. More flakes….

Mini-Battenbergs: kcals 410, salt 0.41, sugar 62.1, prot 4.2, fibre 1.2. Not had one of these for ages as avoiding processed sugar!

Turkish Delight Chocolate bar: kcals 385, salt 0.33, sugar 60.5, prot 1.3, fibre 1.3. Has to be a rare treat I’m afraid. Sugar again!

Prince’s Red Salmon: kcals 143, salt 1.0, carbs\sugar 0.0, prot 22.8, fibre 0.0. Lots of Omega 3 Fatty Acids etc. Very healthy!

Spar Scotch Egg: kcals 234, salt 1.0, sugar 0.8, prot 11.2, fibre 1.3. Mixed bag! Eggs contain both good and bad stuff. Sausage is processed and fatty. Nice treat.

Spar Roast Chicken Drumsticks: kcals 179, salt 0.8 (orange), sugar 0.1 (green), prot 21.9, fibre 0.5, sat fat 2.3 (orange). Spar have changed their chicken products so… I’ve not eaten packaged chicken for ages owing to the salt content. But I may go back onto it – less salt than the salmon!

Spar Semi Skimmed Milk: kcals 49, salt 0.1 (green), carbs (all sugar) 5.0 (sugar orange), prot 3.4, fibre <0.1, fat 1.7\sat fat 1.0 (both orange). If milk isn’t healthy, what is? Can’t stand skimmed milk, sorry. NB the hidden sugar for the sake of your teeth though. (Keep up to that brushing).

Prince’s Tuna Chunks in Spring Water: kcals 99, salt 0.8, sugar 0.00, prot 23.5, fibre <0.1, sat fat 0.1. Again Omega 3 rules. Lots of protein etc. Ignore the salt.

Tesco Brazil Nuts: kcals 689, salt <0.01, sugar 2.3, prot 14.3, fibre 7.5, fat 66.4, sat fat 15.1. Vitamin E 7 MG! Very healthy I’m told because it’s mainly “good fat”. No more salted peanuts for me (unless I sweat lots first)!

“Aero Bar”: kcals 539, salt 0.28, sugar 60.6, prot 5.2, fibre 1.0, fat 30. Empty calories indeed!

Spar Roast Chicken Breast: kcals 199, salt 0.8 (orange), carbs\sugar 0.2 (green), prot 23.6, fibre 0.5, fat 11.4 (orange). I used to live on these but fish seems better. As I say, they have changed this product…

Bounty Bar: kcals 488, salt 0.26, sugar 47.9 (?), prot 3.8, fibre 0.0, fat 26. Still my first choice treat but must watch it! Coconut in centre must help!

Tesco Sport Orange Drink (per 100 ML): kcals 28, salt 0.13, sugar 3.63, prot 0.00, fibre 0.0, fat 0.0. Many vitamins etc. Just use during exercise.

Finally another of my Favourites – Belton Wensleydale Cheese (from Sainsbury): kcals 381, salt 1.58, sugar <0.5, prot 23.7, fibre <0.5, sat fat 21.1. You have to make it last… Fat and salt the issue here.

That’s It. My whole list as far as I know. I hear that protein can be bad for your kidneys yet great for muscle repairs etc. It’s all swings and roundabouts. A balanced diet is the key. All in moderation.

PS 2\8\2016 – Spar new Chicken Breasts: kcals 159, salt 0.5 (orange), sugar 0.4 (green), prot 25.6, fibre 0.1, fat 6 (orange), sat fat 1.7 (orange).

Spar Sweet and Tasty Salad: kcals 19, salt<0.1, sugar 2.0 (green), prot 1.5, fibre 1.5, fat 0.4 (green), sat fat 0.2 (green).

Paul Butters

© PB 1\8\2016.

Down with Religious Intolerance and Racism

(Picture Credit ABC dot com)

More than 100 children killed by the Taliban in a Pakistan School. Hostages and killings in a Sydney Café. Hostage in Belgium. Now cartoonists shot dead in Paris. What is wrong with the world? Why can’t we just get on?

December 2014: Three outrages in two days. The victims: innocent school children in Pakistan, coffee-drinkers in Sydney and at least one other innocent civilian in Belgium.

Now journalists shot in Paris. (Then some police shot as the chase goes on for the perpetrators). What is the world coming to? All in the name of a worldwide Islamic state apparently. Meanwhile CIA Agents and others are investigated for torturing their captives. Pakistan is accused of attacking innocent communities in their North West. Wrongs on all sides.

Let’s face it there is a racial element too. Islam is equated with black people, Christianity with Whites. A horrible blend of racial and religious intolerance.
Why can’t we just all get on? The colour of your skin is such a superficial matter. Just like the colour of your hair or eyes. We are all human beings.

And religion: every religion involves having faith in some deity. Every worthwhile religion preaches Love and Peace to all living things.

These Muslim Extremists talk of world domination and universal Sharia Law. Impossible! Apparently when some extremists conquer a place they ask the people there whether or not they are “Muslim”, and if they say “No” they are executed.

Yet surely any decent person is at least in part a Muslim. Look at the opening of the Quran (I’ve re-arranged it a little):

“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Owner of the Day of Judgement,
Thee (alone) we worship;
Thee (alone) we ask for help.
Show us the straight path,
The path of those whom Thou hast favoured.
Not (the path) of those who earn Thine anger
Nor of those who go astray.”

Just substitute “God” for “Allah” and you are left with something that might have come straight out of The Bible. Even a reference to “Judgement Day”! NB those words “Beneficent” and “Merciful”. “All Worlds” gives an image of Godly Omnipotence. We are implored to follow the path of “Good” rather than “Evil”. We ALL believe this. What is there to fight about?

Okay, so the rest of the Quran might contain some more aggressive passages. The Bible too contains, in The Old Testament, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” But these are ancient texts. They were written when civilisation was still in its infancy. Together we still have that same basic belief: that we are the human race in need of some all-powerful deity to look after us.

Look, I’m a Church of England Christian (a “Protestant” apparently) just because I was BORN in such a community (in England). I could just as easily have been born to become a Buddhist, Shintoist, “Jew” or indeed Muslim. Had I been born much earlier, I might have worshipped Odin, Ra, Zeus or Jupiter. Maybe ALL these religions have something to offer me. And YOU.

To be honest I was brought up only to know about Christianity. I think I will start to study these other religions now. The Buddhist notion or Rebirth or Reincarnation intrigues me for a start. (Pythagoras, Plato and others apparently believed in rebirth). As I say, perhaps any religion contains something to believe in.

Let’s not forget that in the UK before Christianity appeared there were the Druids with their “Mother Earth” (and again belief in Rebirth). There is a lot to commend the Druid religion too.

Why can’t WE belong to ALL good Religions? Perhaps what we need is an Eclectic World Religion, drawing from the best of them all. Maybe Religion needs to be Modernised, keeping the wheat but discarding the chaff. I’m on it. Watch This Space.

Paul Butters

Do You Need Therapy?



 (Picture Credit - Locally Healthy co uk)

Think you might need some sort of therapy? Here are some personal thoughts on the subject.

I was a Careers Adviser in Grimsby, then Humberside (mainly) for 24 years. My training was done in 1981 at the then Trent Polytechnic, Nottingham (now Nottingham Trent University). My main tutors were the “fab four”: John Malkin, Dave Howe (or Howes), Trevor Perrett (or Perritt) (my personal tutor) and Richard Broadley. They taught me the “Trent Model” of careers interviewing, which was essentially a “counselling” approach. I liked that this was a “Helping Interview” model which looked very useful.

We were the last students to be taught the “Seven Point Plan”: a checklist for compiling useful information from our “clients” or interviewees. Once we mastered the 7 Point Plan we then went onto the “Trent Model” proper. In other words we were trained to ask young people nice questions so that they could “tell us all about themselves”. Then we were taught to “diagnose” what these young people were telling us.

Did our client think he or she could be a rocket scientist without doing science? Did he or she think he or she was good at science when in fact he or she was garbage at it but good at the arts and music? Was the client aiming to be a banker because “Dad” wanted this? Did the client need help with decision-making because his or her “plan” was flawed? Or was the client like me at that age: aiming to be a teacher yet unable to say “boo to a goose”?

Some of my fellow students bragged loudly about using the “Trent Challenge”: “Why do you think you are suitable to be a vehicle technician?” “Do you think this is the right career path for you? In what way?”

The good news was that we did help young people with their career decisions and planning. The bad news was that sometimes all we did was cause a family row.

The good news was we helped people. The bad news was we treated people like medical patients: diagnosing some “illness” then seeking to “cure” whatever was “wrong”. Yes I have mixed feelings about having been a “therapist”. We often said that we were there to “empower” people, but were we just meddling?

The same could be said of any therapy of course. Is there a point where the client becomes a “victim” of the therapist, or at best “dependent” on therapy?

The other day I read some stuff on sites similar to “Alcoholics Anonymous” in the UK. According to them I’m an Alcoholic, along with about 80% of the world’s population. Of course we are: Alcohol is addictive and can make people think about drinking. So best see a therapist and let him or her meet some target for diagnosing and treating an Alcoholic. That will draw funds into the “service” and keep everyone happy.

Same with mental health counselling: get someone who is “troubled”, come up with a psychological diagnosis and treatment, and bingo. Sorry if I sound cynical. But at its worst that’s what “therapy” can be. Thankfully there are many good therapists about who really do empower people. All I can say is do take care with your choice of therapist. And do first of all consider carefully whether you need therapy at all. Nuff Said.

 Paul Butters